However, part of your argument regarding literature is deconstructivist in nature. No real judgments can be made because everything is subjective. That's essentially the argument of moral relativism.

I can agree with much of what you wrote, but this part:



I think is ignoring intense debates that people have about the value of particular works. For example, Joyce is often brought up as a writer who is considered a "classic" by some, but crap by others. The borders between literature and popular fiction are sometimes blurred, and the whole point about classification is sometimes an attempt at determining worth and value. Is Ray Bradbury literature? Those are valid questions because essentially by asking the question, someone is asking, "Does this book have worth that will last for generations and be read for its aesthetic or stylistic value, or for what it tells us about the human condition?"

For me, reading Sanderson is just entertainment, while reading Thomas Mann is about so much more. People don't need to "turn their noses up" at novels, but on the other hand, compare literature to art. There is a reason why people reproduce, say, the Mona Lisa and Monet's paintings, while other painters have fallen into obscurity - because certain artists and works are considered to be superior.